손해배상(기)
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is the Defendant.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the defendant added the following "2. Additional Judgment" as to the assertion emphasized or added by the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4
(2) The court below's finding of facts and determination of the first instance court is justifiable in light of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court of first instance, and there is no error as alleged in the ground of appeal by the defendant). 2. Additional decision
A. The plaintiff is not the owner of the store of this case at the time of the accident of this case, and it is unclear whether the plaintiff is the lessee. Thus, the plaintiff is not a party to the claim for damages due to the accident of this case. The plaintiff is not a party to the claim.
On the other hand, in a lawsuit for performance, the plaintiff has standing to sue. Thus, the plaintiff's standing to sue is decided by the plaintiff's assertion itself, and the plaintiff does not require the plaintiff to be a person entitled to demand performance (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da14797 delivered on June 14, 1994). The defendant's main defense against safety is without merit.
B. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim because it is not the tenant, the plaintiff is not the owner of the store of this case at the time of the accident, and it is unclear whether he is the tenant.
In full view of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff had been operating a coffee specialty store with the trade name “N” prior to the instant accident, based on the overall purport of the pleadings on the descriptions and videos in Gap’s Nos. 2, 4, 5, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 2, 2, 5, and Eul’s evidence No. 2; and (b) the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.
C. The Defendant’s assertion of exemption or negligence is delivery and delivery by the lower part of the standing signboards set up in front of the instant store.